Rating: 
Summary: An Experiment in Horror
Review: I loved this book. It scared me out of my skin and made me laugh, sometimes in very close instances. The decision of the author to write the book in the form it's in was, I believe a good choice, as it helped convey the feeling of objectivity. This objectivity made the book scarier, because you never knew when a character might be killed, or worse.
Rating:
Summary: Brilliance, undefined.
Review: HOUSE OF LEAVES is a map of the human soul. You can walk a mile in my shoes, you can live my life through my eyes, through my words, through my descriptions, but you will never know me. HOUSE OF LEAVES is brilliance personified. Literally. When's this guys next book coming out? I want 20 cases.
Rating: 
Summary: Down the rabbit hole.
Review: This book was a very disturbing read. The format does seem a bit pretentious and overblown, but the actual triple storyline was intriguing enough to keep me reading to the end. One of the storylines is embedded in the footnotes, and that got really tiring, trying to read the footnote story simultaneously with one of the main stories above. Still, the basic premise for the story gave me the creeps because I've always been nervous about the hidden spaces inside houses. Attics and basements give me the shivers, so hallways that suddenly appear and grow longer and longer (longer than the house in fact, by a mile or two) provided me with a good scare. I recommend reading the book at least once, if only for the nuggets of plot hidden in the ridiculous wrapping.
Rating:
Summary: small tunnel visioned heads should not pick up this book..
Review: It always amazes me to see reviews of books where some moron likes to triumphantly pronounce that in so many words (often misspelled) 'You can't create the wheel!' That's pretty obvious don't you think? Ideas eatin more ideas never create anything ultimately anew.. Danielewski's book 'House of Leaves' is a literary triumph precisely for the fact that it is coaxing you into a reality that's either real or unreal based on your interpretation biding every moment.. The book is one of a kind in that it actually lures you into interacting with it.. Makes you think constantly.. The chapter where the characters are lost (backward text, profuse footnotes) creates the ultimate confusion for you the reader and you actually feel lost reading it.. But, there's one thing here, you have the option of realizing you're being duped into being confused.. I guess something that obfuscates ones already mundane existence (some reviewers) posed a little to much mental activity.. that's too bad.. Go back to reading the newspaper or something.. This is a great piece of work and I highly recommend it.. oh, but, if you don't like to think through your fictional worlds don't pick it up..
Rating: 
Summary: Smaller on the inside than it is on the outside...
Review: Was this book trite or what? Seems like every postmodern cliche was thrown in to gull the credulous reader into believing it's "experimental," "avante-garde," and "original." And, judging by many of the reviews below, it worked. To compare this book to Nabokov, Pynchon, Borges, et al. is just plain insulting - even if you set aside the question of originality for a second, Danielewski isn't as good a stylist as any of the aforementioned. In fact, I found his writing style clumsy and amateurish, sophomoric. Sometimes the book seemed like the homework assignment of a "clever" creative writing student who was stretching things out to meet a page requirement (let's see ... I can get a couple more pages if I make the font really big here ... a couple more if I narrow the margins ... a couple more if I put only a few words on a page ... and a couple more if I compose a big long list [by the way, folks, the list thing was stolen from Joyce (who did it better), which makes that particular gimmick at least seventy-five years old - so much for avante garde]). And what's with the backwards text? Does he really think I'm going to bother holding it up to a mirror to read some boring list? And don't think that everybody who didn't like this book was some sort of Stephen King-reading prole. The writers that Danielewski is ripping off are some of my favorites, and I hate this book because he's trying to get credit for imitating, badly, their innovations.
Rating:
Summary: Unconventional and Interesting
Review: I found this to be a fascinating book. It is somewhat reminescent of magic realism in that you, as the reader, must accept that the author is playing with you. It's an elaborate and clever game, and delightful only if you are both patient and open-minded to that which goes beyond the accepted paradigm. Though the text can be obscure at times, I was pleased with the words I encountered that I'd never heard before, though I am an avid reader. Some could call this intellectual snobbery or gaudiness, but I enjoy learning new words, such as anfractuosity, ambages, priapic, atrabilious etc. It had me referencing my dictionary, intensely curious. So, not only did I enjoy this read, it also taught me a few words I hadn't been aware of before. I also found the formatting to be intriguing and there are moments when the point is not only the content of what you are reading, but the format in which it is presented, which heightens the impact of the contents. It isn't for everyone and your enjoyment of this text will largely depend on your perspective and approach in reading it. If you do choose to buy this book, which I would recommend, remember that it is fiction and that it is fun. Regarding the footnotes etc, read only what you judge to be important. I, for instance, skipped the pages of exhaustive lists, as it didn't really seem relevant to my appreciation and understanding of the book. It's a labrynth, go slowly and pay attention so that you won't get lost!
Rating: 
Summary: Now Seriously, Folks!
Review: I'm more than slightly amazed at the amount of hype surrounding this novel. I don't believe the author takes himself half so seriously as his growing legions of champions do. Comparing a first novel, chock-full of flaws and misguided attempts at erudition to Nabakov displays to me a serious misappropriation of judgement. To quote from Hudibras: "Still the less they understand, The more they admire the sleight-of-hand" That said, I believe Danielewski has the makings of a highly talented author, if he can find a way to channel his creative energy. I know that I probably come off as sounding like one of the writing seminar professors at Yale who rejected him (an event he recounts in his novel), but the boy still needs some guidance. If logorrhea were a literary virtue, our candidate would succeed with flying colors. He can go on and on and on and he loves, no doubt, to see his words printed in sundry forms upon a page. For those who think the textual form of this book is some sort of ground-breaking innovation, I would refer you to Tristram Shandy, written over 200 years ago. In a "Book Page" interview, Danielewski acknowledges the influence of e.e. cummings, whose concrete poetry he emulates here. He doesn't mention George Herbert and several other metaphysical poets who were writing in the 17th century, using similar devices (I'm not implying he's not aware of them, merely that he doesn't cite the influence.) I don't necessarily believe that a narrative must be linear to be cohesive. There are too many proofs in modern, post-modern, and post-post-modern literature that would belie such a dictum. I have no problem with authors playing with structure, points-of-view, am not bothered by self-referential games, doppleganger hijinx, wordplay, etc. What I'd like to see is some sort of intelligence at work on the part of teh gamemaster. This is why a Nabakov or a Paul Auster or a Pynchon can get away with whatever creative flights they want to with me. I'm going to buy into their abandonment of the rules. I'll even let them make the rules up as they go along, because I know that I'm going to be rewarded in the end by my participation. I tried very hard to keep playing Danielewski's game, but it really turned into a redundant exercise. I have little quarrel with the Johnny Truant narrative. It drifts into purple haze territory at times but manages to sustain my interest. It reads a bit like a Stephen Wright novel, lots of drugs, paranoia, and human savagery. The Navidson passages border on the truly trite. I suppose that if you found the Blair Witch Project compelling cinema, it would prove equally engrossing. The old "scholars" text, where the footnotes really start getting baroque, left me practically fuming over why I had invested any time in reading them. They are supposed to sound Borgesian, and instead sound like they come from a ninety year old Hunter Thompson on bad acid. Unfortunately, Danielewski saves his worst for last. The epliogue material featuring the letters that Truant's mother wrote him from the asylum, are among the most banal examples of prose I've ever encountered on a printed page. As you can see, there is not a great deal I like about this novel. But again, this writer can't be dismissed, just hopefully harnessed. He has moments of real brilliance. He'll hit on a metaphor or convey a dead-on-target insight that will floor you. Hopefully, he will find his true voice and we will see a really important talent emerge in the future.
Rating: 
Summary: Elaborate gimmick.
Review: Following the hype and my own preference for contemporary American writers I was excited to dive into House of Leaves. Initially it proved to be inventive, and fresh, but these apparent strenghts soon become weaknesses: The use of footnotes, the multi-level narrative, and photomontages, are an elaborate gimmick, rather than something which actually promotes the narrative. The author is clearly straining for effect--particularly an intellectual effect. The use of quotes, foreign languages, references to obscure texts, it all becomes a tdious exercise, something which would impress a thesis advisor. The actual "story" is in my opinion rather shabby. A hallway with a 500 foot ceiling? In a word the writer's grasp greatly exceeds his reach. He is certainly no David Foster Wallace, though it appears he would like to be. This book screams "look how smart I am!" There is no charcter development, the premise is silly, and unconvincing. I admire his ambition, but prefer to have the goods delivered, as opposed to promised. Readers seeking an antidote to this unaffecting excess will do well to read George Saunders, or William T Vollman. Writers more in control of their stylistic devices.
Rating:
Summary: This is not for you.
Review: Ask yourself why you are here.
Rating:
Summary: Nice concept, but SOOO dragged out
Review: I got about 65% through before giving up. Perhaps a third of what I read was brilliant, but unfortunately he goes over the top with boring pretention (for example, he has a real thing about lists - tedious, long, boring lists spanning pages and pages.) The author is good, the storyline is good, but the book is not.
|
